# V.K.E. v. State

> Supreme Court of Florida · July 6, 2006 · 31 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 505

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7783542

## Case

- **Full name:** V.K.E., etc. v. STATE of Florida
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Florida
- **Decided:** July 6, 2006
- **Citations:** 31 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 505; 934 So. 2d 1276; 2006 Fla. LEXIS 1475
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Bell
- **Judges:** Anstead, Bell, Cantero, Lewis, Pariente, Quince, Wells
- **Cited by:** 53 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7783542

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that a trial judge does not have the power to impose surcharges pursuant to sections 938.08 and 938.085, Florida Statutes on a juvenile in a juvenile delinquency proceeding and concluding that imposing such surcharges would conflict with the legislative intent in creat…
- holding that a trial court does not have the authority to impose on juveniles in a juvenile proceeding the mandatory surcharge set forth in section 938.08
- recognizing the legislature has not expressly provided for assessment of costs under sections 938.05 and 938.085 in juvenile delinquency proceedings
- holding that section 938.05 does not apply in juvenile delinquency proceedings

## Opinion text

BELL, J.
dissenting.
While I personally prefer the policy-based interpretation advanced by Judge Sharp, and now the majority, I believe the plain language of the statute leads to the conclusion reached by Justice Cantero. Absent an argument that this “plain language” reading of the statute somehow leads to an absurd result contrary to legislative intent, we are limited to that conclusion. This is especially true in a case like this where even the majority acknowledges that we do not really know what the Legislature intended in regard to the question posed. See majority op. at 1278 note 2.
As Justice Cantero explains, the plain language of sections 938.08 and 938.085, Florida Statutes (2001, 2003), should lead us to answer “yes” to the certified question. Neither section 938.083 nor section 938.085 exempts juvenile delinquencies from the convictions triggering the mandatory fines imposed in these statutes. The Legislature mandated that section 938.08, *1294 Florida Statutes (2005), apply “[i]n addition to any sanction imposed for a violation of [the listed statutes]” and that section 938.085, Florida Statutes (2005), apply “in addition to any sanction imposed when a person pleads guilty or nolo contendere, or is found guilty of, regardless of adjudication a violation of [the listed statutes.]” (Emphasis added.) While I agree with the majority’s argument that “the two penal systems for handling adults and juveniles are so different and guided by different philosophies and goals,” I cannot overlook the fact that the Legislature knew these differences when it wrote these statutes, yet chose language encompassing both systems.
Therefore, I join Justice Cantero in his dissent and encourage the Legislature to clarify its intent on this significant issue.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7783542. Public record. Not legal advice.